CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #14

[Bernina]

“My fear is that I’m looking for two adult shallow graves and … my two nephews’ crosses,” Michael McStay said. “If there’s no evidence of foul play at the house, like police said, it doesn’t mean there’s not a crime scene elsewhere.”

Video shows missing family leaving home – Orange County Register

Now that you've clarified your post, what is the point? And as per MM's testimony yesterday, he was misquoted and his words taken out of context by main stream media quite a few times. This is nothing but beating a dead horse IMO.

 

[Mony Mony]

If I were a juror I would take the K.I.S.S. approach and ask:
1) Who would the toddler boys be able to identify?
2) Of those people who gained the most from having the McStays dead?

The two timed felon had the most to gain, IMO. He risked additional jail time if JM remained alive and reported the theft to the police. So, to preserve his freedom, CM killed them all. IMO MOO etc etc

 

[smr]

It's equivalent to a missing person from a boat. "Well my worst fear is they are lost at sea".

IMO it's more equivalent to: "My worst fear is they'll be found near two beaches". Actually, even more peculiar than that, because when people are lost at sea, their bodies easily separate and can end up hundreds of miles away from each other, but when a murderer bury his victims, it's rare he buries them separately and yet nearby.

 

[Mony Mony]

Re the two shallow graves/crosses comment.....

1. The boys were not found with two crosses. They were thrown into the graves with their parents. The crosses came later.

2. IMO MOO It was too horrific of an idea for Michael to verbalize that his nephews may be dead. He is still acknowledging they may be dead, but is using softer language.

This type of language is similar to when a person says, "grandma is in a better place" or, "grandpa will no longer have any pain".

 

[smr]

I agree 100%. To bring up again there was friction between Summet and Mike to make it out be enough for him to carry out four murders is way out there. I was waiting for Maline to ask "So Mikey, what really happened July 4th?".

It's the strangest defense strategy I ever saw.

They had Mike back specifically to infer he did it, so how on earth are they going to put on their case that Dan did it? They remind me of headless chickens.

I don't see the defense trying to infer MM did it. It's MM's own words that made him stand out, as if he somehow had some knowledge about what happened to his brother's family.

Is it possible that both CM and MM somehow had early knowledge or suspicion (with good reasons that we are unaware of) that the family had met foul play, without being actively involved in the crime?

Now that you've clarified your post, what is the point? And as per MM's testimony yesterday, he was misquoted and his words taken out of context by main stream media quite a few times. This is nothing but beating a dead horse IMO.

My point is plainly clear.

The two timed felon had the most to gain, IMO. He risked additional jail time if JM remained alive and reported the theft to the police. So, to preserve his freedom, CM killed them all. IMO MOO etc etc

Such an alleged motive is extremely unconvincing.

 

[smr]

I don't know what is more common but I don't see why he should have thought one way or the other. He was speaking of two adults and he made the point that he feared they were murdered by referring to two graves.

It's looking like a case of confirmation bias to me.

From Wikipedia:

"Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.[1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning."

It's MM's own words that caused the curiosity. I don't see any preexisting beliefs of the DT about him prior to the peculiar statements he made. Nothing to confirm.

 

[asyousay]

Re the two shallow graves/crosses comment.....

1. The boys were not found with two crosses. They were thrown into the graves with their parents. The crosses came later.

2. IMO MOO It was too horrific of an idea for Michael to verbalize that his nephews may be dead. He is still acknowledging they may be dead, but is using softer language.

This type of language is similar to when a person says, "grandma is in a better place" or, "grandpa will no longer have any pain".

But considering his worst fear was finding them in two shallow graves with crosses, why would he then by his own choosing add crosses to where they were found?

Seems morbid to me!!

 

[smr]

This is an interesting article and mentions the McStay family
(quote)
Murder in the Mojave: Homicides and Body Dumps in the California Desert
The desert's massive size and inhospitable conditions make it the perfect place to hide a body.
Murder in the Mojave: Homicides and Body Dumps in the California Desert

I've seen that article/webpage but haven't read it in detail. Does it mention whether most of those were done by drug or cartel related crimes? Just curious.

 

[Tortoise]

I don't see the defense trying to infer MM did it.

rsbm

IMO that was the only purpose of getting him back today. Why else would any of these matters be relevant to the trial?

1. defense wanted to bring in a photo of Mike by a hole in the ground but the prosecution successfully objected
2. taking the computer.
3. the missing laptop.
4. holding out that he was owner of EIP.
5. something to do with his loan in early 2010.
6. his comment about driving by the house on 4th.
7. his truck lights.
8. his cell phone records on 4th.
9. his shallow graves comments.
10. his fall out with Summer and her dividing the family.

 

[Tortoise]

From Wikipedia:

"Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.[1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning."

It's MM's own words that caused the curiosity. I don't see any preexisting beliefs of the DT about him prior to the peculiar statements he made. Nothing to confirm.

I do. I think they were angling towards he would only have said that if he buried them. They didn't bring up any other interpretations so that the jury would think Mike was suggesting someone else in particular put them in shallow graves.

 

[Cricket28]

I wonder why they never raised the issue of the money from the sale of the home appliances. I suppose the issue may have been quashed by the state at a hearing we didn't get audio for.

I'm surprised the defense didn't do their homework on the truck that didn't belong to Mikey. Oops!

They did ask for Mike to be subject to recall, so maybe the DT is still planning on calling either Heather or Michael McFadden to lay the foundation regarding the appliances and other financials.
IDK...

MOO

 

[Mony Mony]

But considering his worst fear was finding them in two shallow graves with crosses, why would he then by his own choosing add crosses to where they were found?

Seems morbid to me!!

I don't know, but i am guessing he said crosses because it is custom to put crosses at the site where people die unexpectedly??

 

[travelbug]

rsbm

IMO that was the only purpose of getting him back today. Why else would any of these matters be relevant to the trial?

1. defense wanted to bring in a photo of Mike by a hole in the ground but the prosecution successfully objected
2. taking the computer.
3. the missing laptop.
4. holding out that he was owner of EIP.
5. something to do with his loan in early 2010.
6. his comment about driving by the house on 4th.
7. his truck lights.
8. his cell phone records on 4th.
9. his shallow graves comments.
10. his fall out with Summer and her dividing the family.

I interpret that as the DT doing their job. This is a trial based upon CE. The DT already brought in experts to explain and/or refute the PT CE. Now they are bringing up CE, as it relates to others who had something to gain by eliminating JM. You have just listed 10 points worthy of casting doubt upon the guilt of the defendant. I have no doubt that if DK shows up to testify we will see similar strategy regarding CE connected to him. The DT's job is to create reasonable doubt regarding their client.

We don't have to like it or believe it to be fair or accurate, but I would hope we can accept it as part of the system of justice in the USA. jmho

 

[Cricket28]

What are you confused about cricket? Maybe I can help (maybe not ).

Is there in fact a missing laptop?

Thanks Tortoise!

 

[la2cabo]

But considering his worst fear was finding them in two shallow graves with crosses, why would he then by his own choosing add crosses to where they were found?

Seems morbid to me!!

None of the family (including Michael McStay) placed the crosses at the gravesite. The crosses were erected by some citizens who live here in the high desert.

 

[Cricket28]

I don't think there is a missing laptop from the San Diego SW's. A Dell laptop was seized from the McStay home by LE as well as two desktop computers. I read somewhere else that a HP laptop of JM's was missing, and it was thought to be the laptop CJ stated to San Bernadino investigators was stored in AZ at her mother's place per those warrants.
http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kfmb/misc/mcstay_warrants.pdf

Wait. So Chase had Joey's laptop?

 

[geevee]

At the beginning of yesterday's audio, Imes objects to some pictures Maline wants to enter, Imes says Mike's cell tower records don't put him anywhere near Fallbrook on the 4th nor near the desert on the 6th (zero relevance, violates the 3rd party culpability ruling of the court), I suppose this is one of the reasons Mike was ruled out as a suspect (or one of the reasons).

 

[Tortoise]

Is there in fact a missing laptop?

Thanks Tortoise!

Maline asked Mike if he removed a laptop. He said no.

Maline then said that San Bernardino detectives told Mike in 2013/14 that they couldn't find the laptop - judge sustained prosecution's objection as facts not in evidence.

Maline then asked Mike if he knew a laptop was missing and he said no.

 

[Tortoise]

I interpret that as the DT doing their job. This is a trial based upon CI. The DT already brought in experts to explain and/or refute the PT CI. Now they are bringing up CI, as it relates to others who had something to gain by eliminating JM. You have just listed 10 points worthy of casting doubt upon the guilt of the defendant. I have no doubt that if DK shows up to testify we will see similar strategy regarding CI connected to him. The DT's job is to create reasonable doubt regarding their client.

We don't have to like it or believe it to be fair or accurate, but I would hope we can accept it as part of the system of justice in the USA. jmho

I didn't say they weren't doing their job or that it was unfair or I didn't like it or accept it etc.

I was pointing out that with these points they were inferring he did it.

 

[QueenBofOB]

But considering his worst fear was finding them in two shallow graves with crosses, why would he then by his own choosing add crosses to where they were found?

Seems morbid to me!!

Did HE actually put up crosses or was it the citizens of Victorville? According to the SB SUN Newspaper, it was "community members and businesses, planted 4 crosses..." MM attended the memorial service, that was all.